자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 12, 2018, at around 00:30, the Plaintiff driven C low-speed car volume while under the influence of alcohol by 0.153% at the front of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B (hereinafter “instant drinking”).
B. On October 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary) on the ground of the instant drunk driving (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on November 28, 2018, but was dismissed on January 8, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he actively cooperates in the investigation of drunk driving after the pertinent drunk driving, and considering all circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff is an employee of a distribution business with a large number of delivery services and is in need of operation of his duties, economic difficulties, and there are family members to support, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.
B. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant administrative act, and all relevant circumstances.
In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate is not only the above criteria but also the contents and purport of the relevant statutes.